Why did Criston Cole support Aegon II?

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

It's not clear to me that he would.

As far as Aegon is concerned, Jaime is Kingslayer. Whereas Cersei is innocent of any wrongdoing against Aegon - she was just a daughter at Casterly Rock, innocent of her father's crimes.

Nor is she as yet guilty of initial resistance to Aegon - she's a prisoner of Faith with no power, therefore it's the Hand Mace and not Cersei who deserves a penalty. Although Aegon has not even publicly declared for crown yet - he needs to give Mace, Tommen and Cersei a reasonable time to bend the knee.

The idea is that Jaime Lannister publicly acknowledges Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen as his own children, conceived in incest and adultery with Queen Cersei. If Jaime did that Tommen and Myrcella would be finished. Mace Tyrell could not really remain the Hand of a non-existing king. Even if he wanted a majority of his lords and knights would not want to follow some incest-born bastard. Rumors and slanders are one thing but Jaime actually confessing to the Realm what he has done and accepting the consequences of it should have a huge impact. Even more so if the Golden Company has by then already smashed the Tyrell army that is marching against them.

If some sort of deal is made with Aegon then Jaime could actually enter KL in disguise and make his confession at the Great Sept - which would be another powerful symbol marking the moment when the High Septon denounces King Tommen as a pretender and an abomination and proclaims Prince Aegon the rightful King of Westeros (and we all expect that this is going to happen sooner or later).

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Which ones were "turncloaks" for Jaehaerys - the 2 who deserted to him, or the 5 who didn't?

That depends. If there were still KG from Aenys' day among Maegor's then those would have been turncloaks, too. But accepting the fealty of men who were given the White by Maegor seems problematic to me. If those men betray one king how sure can Jaehaerys I be that they won't betray him, too, if his cause seems to be lost?

If the two were knights named to the KG by Aenys I it could make sense for Jaehaerys I to accept them back into the fold.

But this isn't the same case as Steffon Darklyn joining Rhaenyra in the beginning of the Dance. He never acknowledged Aegon II as his king. But those two knights presumably served Maegor I for years.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

How many of Maegor's 7 were Aenys' kingsguard?

That is really difficult to say. Perhaps some of them actually joined Prince Aegon in his futile attempt to win the crown at the Gods Eye. There has to be some explanation how Aegon in the Westerlands got a hold of his father's dragon Quicksilver who, most likely, was with Aenys I on Dragonstone when the man died. Some of Aenys' Kingsguard could have been involved in all of that.

In addition, there is a chance that many Kingsguard died in the fighting against the Faith Militant. We know that Ser Raymont Baratheon died defending the royal family shortly before Aenys moved to Dragonstone. Did he had time to name a new Kingsguard before his death? We don't know. But it could very well be that Maegor only had six White Swords when he took over and that some of them died in the early battles against the Warrior's Sons and Poor Fellows to be eventually replaced by men of Maegor's choosing.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Do you think all the 20+ accused by Cregan were actually guilty?

That is difficult to say. I think the men who were executed were actually not guilty. Gyles Belgrave most likely wouldn't have killed his king if he did not want to survive him. And Larys Strong is not likely to have defected to the Blacks to kill the king he so successfully protected earlier on during the war.

Thus I think most of the men who went to the Wall were the guilty ones. Ser Perkin the Flea is the only other accused mentioned, and it seems that man might have been cunning and ruthless enough to have been involved in the murder. The fact that nobody tried to avenge Aegon II after he had been clearly poisoned suggests that a majority of the men at court where happy that he was gone. The architect of the entire thing most likely was Corlys Velaryon. He was the man who wanted to restore peace, and Aegon II was an obstacle to it. In addition he had no reason to look kindly on the man who had murdered his own sister, played a crucial role in the death of his own beloved wife, and possibly disfigured his own granddaughter.

Baela, Rhaena, Black Aly, and Aegon III later doing everything in their power to protect Corlys is also very telling. Aegon III most certainly would have had every reason to thank/reward/save the man who had killed his evil uncle, the man who murdered his mother, and Baela and Rhaena were Corlys' grandchildren with Baela certainly having her own issues with Aegon II.

But I guess some of the people Cregan condemned to the Wall did at least know what was going on. But there is no hint the man actually talked to any witnesses. It seems he just collectively decided that the powerful people at court did murder Aegon II and had to be punished for that.

[SeanF]

Lord Varys in that scenario, Jaime would be condemning his children to death.  Why would he do that?

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

Lord Varys in that scenario, Jaime would be condemning his children to death.  Why would he do that?

He is already intending to reveal the truth, both to his children and the world. Reread his last chapter, he muses about what Myrcella and the Martells will think when they learn the truth and Myrcella loses her status as princess.

He certainly is not going to do this to get his children killed. He most likely would demand a guarantee from Aegon that his children are going to be treated well and honorably as well as trying to make preparations to see to their safety himself (assuming both are still alive and well at this point).

In fact, he could actually return to the city not in disguise but very openly taking charge of the few Lannister forces in KL, putting Tommen and Myrcella under his protection as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard and then making his proclamation/confession when he is reasonably sure that he can protect his children.

But then, we have to keep in mind Jaime is clearly not really caring about his children all that much. He complains that Cersei saw to it that no real bond between him and his children existed, and when Jaime tried to form a bond with Tommen Cersei intervened and sent Jaime away. His honor seems to be more important to him right now than the well-being of his children. Else he would never even contemplate the idea of revealing the truth about their parentage.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Or Cersei's remaining two children will have their golden shrouds already, and Jaime won't have to protect them. 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He is already intending to reveal the truth, both to his children and the world. Reread his last chapter, he muses about what Myrcella and the Martells will think when they learn the truth and Myrcella loses her status as princess.

He certainly is not going to do this to get his children killed. He most likely would demand a guarantee from Aegon that his children are going to be treated well and honorably as well as trying to make preparations to see to their safety himself (assuming both are still alive and well at this point).

In fact, he could actually return to the city not in disguise but very openly taking charge of the few Lannister forces in KL, putting Tommen and Myrcella under his protection as Lord Commander of the Kingsguard and then making his proclamation/confession when he is reasonably sure that he can protect his children.

But then, we have to keep in mind Jaime is clearly not really caring about his children all that much. He complains that Cersei saw to it that no real bond between him and his children existed, and when Jaime tried to form a bond with Tommen Cersei intervened and sent Jaime away. His honor seems to be more important to him right now than the well-being of his children. Else he would never even contemplate the idea of revealing the truth about their parentage.

"Mercy" for Tommen would probably mean blinding and castration.  Myrcella would likely be confined to the Silent Sisters.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Or Cersei's remaining two children will have their golden shrouds already, and Jaime won't have to protect them. 

I already said that:

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He most likely would demand a guarantee from Aegon that his children are going to be treated well and honorably as well as trying to make preparations to see to their safety himself (assuming both are still alive and well at this point).

I'm inclined to believe that either Tommen or Myrcella are going to die very soon. But one of them might live for quite some time still.

And, in fact, this whole Jaime idea I'm outlining might never come to pass if Cersei (for some reason) loses her trial-by-combat (the idea being that the High Septon declares it null and void after it becomes apparent that Cersei's champion is a zombie monster created by black magic). Then this divine proclamation by His High Holiness would also declare Cersei's children illegitimate thanks to all the charges against her that are combined in this one trial.

13 minutes ago, SeanF said:

"Mercy" for Tommen would probably mean blinding and castration.  Myrcella would likely be confined to the Silent Sisters.

On what do you base this? In light of the treatment of Aegon and Rhaenys I'd have been inclined to believe prior to the publication of TWoIaF. There were learned about the lenient treatment of 'King Gaemon Palehair' by both Aegon II and Aegon III.

Tommen and Myrcella are effectively innocent children, too. They were used in attempts by other people to steal a throne they had no right to in the first place. In a sense they (and Joff) are not Stannis or Renly, pretenders with an actual blood claim but on the same level as an impostor.

They only have to be severely punished if they still enjoyed a sufficient following after the truth is out. There is a scenario imaginable in which the Lords of the West and the Reach (and others throughout the Seven Kingdoms) dismiss Jaime's proclamation and confession and still look to Tommen/Myrcella as their trueborn monarch.

But that is not a very likely scenario.

It is much more likely that those people who more or less stuck with Tommen/Myrcella because it was favorable for them or their powerful lieges (Westermen/Reachers) will take this revelation as a signal to rethink their allegiances. The consequence could be a mass defection to Aegon. Nobody wants to serve a false boy king (let alone a false girl queen) and Aegon is the only good/positive option people have left. Nobody likes Stannis, Euron is a cruel madman and Ironborn, and Dany is far away.

[Jaak]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If some sort of deal is made with Aegon then Jaime could actually enter KL in disguise and make his confession at the Great Sept - which would be another powerful symbol marking the moment when the High Septon denounces King Tommen as a pretender and an abomination and proclaims Prince Aegon the rightful King of Westeros

 Non sequitur.

If Robert was right to seize the throne and disinherit Viserys and implicitly Aegon, then Robert´s lack of children does NOT make Aegon king - it´s Stannis/Shireen who is.

If Robert was wrong to seize the throne, then Tommen rightly ought to return Iron Throne to Aegon - and has inheritance rights to Storm´s End and Casterly Rock.

Denouncing the legitimacy of succession Robert/Tommen is pointless for Aegon and positively undermines his own claim, which is based on denouncing Robert. After all, who´d Aegon want to return his conquered Storm´s End to - Stannis, or Tommen who´s his captive anyway?

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

That is really difficult to say. Perhaps some of them actually joined Prince Aegon in his futile attempt to win the crown at the Gods Eye.

 If Maegor slew Grand Maester, would he have spared a Kingsguard?

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is difficult to say. I think the men who were executed were actually not guilty. Gyles Belgrave most likely wouldn't have killed his king if he did not want to survive him. And Larys Strong is not likely to have defected to the Blacks to kill the king he so successfully protected earlier on during the war.

Thus I think most of the men who went to the Wall were the guilty ones.

Why do you think there were 10+?

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ser Perkin the Flea is the only other accused mentioned, and it seems that man might have been cunning and ruthless enough to have been involved in the murder.

 But was he trusted to the extent of having the opportunity?

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The fact that nobody tried to avenge Aegon II after he had been clearly poisoned suggests that a majority of the men at court where happy that he was gone.

Or else they had no certain idea who did it. Like Maegor - any of the 5 Kingsguard, or an unknown intruder, might have done it.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But I guess some of the people Cregan condemned to the Wall did at least know what was going on. But there is no hint the man actually talked to any witnesses. It seems he just collectively decided that the powerful people at court did murder Aegon II and had to be punished for that.

And yet there is a good chance that Aegon II was murdered by powerless people, who were not punished for it.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

On 9/27/2016 at 3:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

The 'poetic aspect' (or perhaps interesting would be a better word for it) would make sense if George had envisioned and realized Bloodraven as a man torn between love and duty - a man with strong principles who also loved his half-brother Daemon. But we neither have indication that Bloodraven was and remained in the camp of the Red Dragon because of his principles (it is just as likely that he just loathed Aegor and Daemon so much to jump on the chance to hurt and kill them) nor is there any indication that he loved the man at all.

If Bloodraven were some sort of character resembling Rüdiger von Bechlarn from the Nibelungenlied (who was torn between his love for Giselher's daughter and his friendship with the Burgunden and his duty to his lieges Etzel and Kriemhild) this whole thing could have been interesting. But there are not even to suggest such a scenario. The only thing in favor of this theory is that Bloodraven does not name the brother he loved and the brother he hated. For all we know it could have been some Blackwood brother he was talking about (assuming Missy every married) or his alleged half-brother Balerion (the son of Bellegere Otherys).

I agree. Bloodraven actually seems like a man who isn't that conflicted at all, to me. He's the kind of guy who does stuff that has to be done but which the good guys will never do, and doesn't spend time beating himself up over some misguided sense of honor. I'm not even sure if he really personally hated Bittersteel all that much - I feel it's more like he knew that this guy was a complete ass who was wrecking the realm for nothing but his selfish desires, and he had to be taken out. He truly seems to have actually been bothered about the long-term stability of the realm and not really about his own personal power or image. The clinical, practical manner in which he handles the Blackfyre Rebellions and the whole Aenys thing to get Egg, a good guy, comfortably on the throne seems to tell us that. In general he doesn't seem super emotional from whatever little we know of him.

On 9/27/2016 at 3:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

I don't expect many revelations about Bloodraven's past at court from Bran's chapters but I actually expect at least his basic story so that the people only reading the series understand that this man is a son of Aegon the Unworthy and a distant uncle of Daenerys, Jon, and Aegon. However, I think such revelations will most likely focus on those parts of Bloodraven's life connected to magic, the Children, and the Others - not so much on petty politics. If Bloodraven talks about his relationships and feelings then most likely in a way full of loss and regret. I'm pretty sure the man would do a lot of things differently had he the chance to actually travel back in time. The idea that he searched for his ghosts in the past to relive the glory he felt when he killed Daemon and his sons is not very likely. In fact, I'd be very surprised if he still loathes Bittersteel. What was the point of all that, anyway? They are all dead and nothing good came out of any of it.

Yeah, you're right. I really hope that BR talks to Bran about his life, even though it might seem odd for casual readers. If BR has to open up, now is the time - and Bran is the person. But it won't be very soon because it seems from his entire description in ADWD that George wants to mislead the casual reader that this guy is complete evil/Dark Lord Sauron/The Great Other. 

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

I agree. Bloodraven actually seems like a man who isn't that conflicted at all, to me. He's the kind of guy who does stuff that has to be done but which the good guys will never do, and doesn't spend time beating himself up over some misguided sense of honor. I'm not even sure if he really personally hated Bittersteel all that much - I feel it's more like he knew that this guy was a complete ass who was wrecking the realm for nothing but his selfish desires, and he had to be taken out. He truly seems to have actually been bothered about the long-term stability of the realm and not really about his own personal power or image. The clinical, practical manner in which he handles the Blackfyre Rebellions and the whole Aenys thing to get Egg, a good guy, comfortably on the throne seems to tell us that. In general he doesn't seem super emotional from whatever little we know of him.

Oh, well, I'd not see him as positively as that. Bloodraven is often compared to Tywin but the thing is that they don't have all that much in common. Tywin was the heir to a great seat and suffered the Tytos trauma of powerlessness and ridicule. Brynden Rivers was heir to nothing and had no personal or dynastic reason to become a ruthless bad ass.

Thus, I think, his personal feelings should be his main motivator, and they might have been as petty as Aegor's, basically. There is the traditional Bracken-Blackwood hatred, the fact that Brynden had every chance to get close to Daeron II (while Aegor had less chances of that sort considering how Barbra's father actually schemed to replace Naerys with Barbra), and then there is the Shiera factor.

Brynden might have fueled the simmering Targaryen-Blackfyre conflict as much on the Targaryen side as Aegor fueled it (before and after the First Rebellion) on the Blackfyre side.

It is easy to interpret Bloodraven's competence at championing the winning side as him trying to do the right thing but whether those were his motives to do that remains to be seen. The Maynard Plumm facade shows a man who understands irony and all, but that is a facade. We have no idea about his true feelings.

I'm fine with the idea that his loyalty to Daeron II was motivated by love and respect for this man who he realized was a good king. And his loyalty to Aerys I and Maekar I might have been motivated to a lesser degree by the same feelings but his hatred for Bittersteel might have been very present in those years, too, especially during the Third Rebellion.

Whether long-term stability or anything of that sort was ever on his mind I sincerely doubt. Long-term stability until the next Blackfyre rebellion, perhaps. Long-term stability in the sense that he is going to do anything in his power to keep Aerys I and Maekar I on the Iron Throne. But that has nothing to do with the big picture. The NW continued to decline throughout those years and Bloodraven most likely only began to care about 'the big picture' after he had been sent to the Wall.

7 hours ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Yeah, you're right. I really hope that BR talks to Bran about his life, even though it might seem odd for casual readers. If BR has to open up, now is the time - and Bran is the person. But it won't be very soon because it seems from his entire description in ADWD that George wants to mislead the casual reader that this guy is complete evil/Dark Lord Sauron/The Great Other. 

I really don't get that Dark Lord vibe at all. Being a greenseer isn't pretty and just because it is dark in that cave and they are doing weird magical stuff doesn't amidst of skeletons doesn't mean the guy is evil. Bloodraven's identity has to be revealed, of course. But then - they also have to focus on the actual plot of this series, not reminiscing about Bloodraven's past. They should only do that insofar as it affects the actual plot of the story. And right now the origin of the Others is much more interesting than, say, Bloodraven's relationship with his dead brothers or even how exactly it came to be that he became the last greenseer (although I think that will be elaborated on). The question when exactly Brynden Rivers realized he was a skinchanger and a potential greenseer would be interesting, too. I doubt he was aware of that in his youth or as Hand, even, considering that no animals are seen around him (and he could easily enough have kept a pet raven, dog, cat, etc.) despite his interest in magic. Was he eventually contacted by his predecessor as greenseer the way he later contacted Bran? If so, who the hell was that guy? Has anybody ever asked that question before? We have to wait and see.

[Lord Varys]

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

 Non sequitur.

No idea what you are talking about here (I don't mean the Latin, but the point you are trying to make).

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

If Robert was right to seize the throne and disinherit Viserys and implicitly Aegon, then Robert´s lack of children does NOT make Aegon king - it´s Stannis/Shireen who is.

From a Targaryen (loyalist) point of view (the point of view all supporters of Aegon (or Dany later on) will take is that the Robert Baratheon was a usurper, pretender, and false king, and his heirs as well. That is not the point of view of the followers of Stannis or Tommen/Myrcella but so what? There is no unified view on that in any case.

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

If Robert was wrong to seize the throne, then Tommen rightly ought to return Iron Throne to Aegon - and has inheritance rights to Storm´s End and Casterly Rock.

No, he hasn't because he isn't Robert Baratheon's son nor the trueborn son of Cersei Lannister. He is a bastard and as such he has rights to nothing. Cersei's heirs would be Martyn Lannister, not Tommen/Myrcella.

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

Denouncing the legitimacy of succession Robert/Tommen is pointless for Aegon and positively undermines his own claim, which is based on denouncing Robert. After all, who´d Aegon want to return his conquered Storm´s End to - Stannis, or Tommen who´s his captive anyway?

Robert can be denounced as a false king and usurper while Tommen/Myrcella and late Joffrey are also revealed to be not even the rightful heirs of this false Baratheon king but instead bastards born in incest who have claims to nothing.

By having Jaime publicly reveal that Cersei's children are his and not Robert's the last shreds of legitimacy this Lannister-Tyrell-dominated 'Baratheon regime' might have left will be swept away.

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

 If Maegor slew Grand Maester, would he have spared a Kingsguard?

Sure, if the Kingsguard were smart enough to keep their mouth shut until they had a chance to sneak away. You could just as well ask why the hell Steffon Darklyn could steal the crown and defect Rhaenyra? Apparently because he did not talk to Cole/Hightower/Aegon II about his true feelings/loyalties.

And one also assumes that pro-Aegon schemes and plots were in the making while Maegor was knocked out for an entire month. Visenya certainly couldn't have been everywhere at once and we have no clue whether Alyssa and her children were already imprisoned by that time or not.

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

Why do you think there were 10+?

I guess because this was actually a widespread conspiracy to murder Aegon II and crown Aegon III done by the people in charge who had no intention to continue the war be slaughtered as Green sympathizers by the Blacks storming the capital.

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

 But was he trusted to the extent of having the opportunity?

No idea. I find the very concept of Trystane being executed and Perkin joining Aegon II bizarre.

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

Or else they had no certain idea who did it. Like Maegor - any of the 5 Kingsguard, or an unknown intruder, might have done it.

That sounds like an excuse. And the fact that Alicent Hightower was imprisoned for life for some reason also supports the idea that there was some sort of coup.

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

And yet there is a good chance that Aegon II was murdered by powerless people, who were not punished for it.

Who do you think that could have been? Some servant who for some reason had the coin and opportunity to purchase poison?

[Jaak]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

No, he hasn't because he isn't Robert Baratheon's son nor the trueborn son of Cersei Lannister. He is a bastard and as such he has rights to nothing. Cersei's heirs would be Martyn Lannister, not Tommen/Myrcella.

And Martyn Lannister is safe in Westerlands.

Denouncing Tommen as a bastard does not win over his former supporters as much as recognizing Tommen as a trueborn Baratheon and having him bend the knee to the Targaryen king does. Ditto about Myrcella - conveniently in Dornish hands, so they can claim Stormlands and West in her name unless they rock the boat by calling her a bastard.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

By having Jaime publicly reveal that Cersei's children are his and not Robert's the last shreds of legitimacy this Lannister-Tyrell-dominated 'Baratheon regime' might have left will be swept away.

 And that does nothing about Stannis.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, if the Kingsguard were smart enough to keep their mouth shut until they had a chance to sneak away. You could just as well ask why the hell Steffon Darklyn could steal the crown and defect Rhaenyra? Apparently because he did not talk to Cole/Hightower/Aegon II about his true feelings/loyalties.

And one also assumes that pro-Aegon schemes and plots were in the making while Maegor was knocked out for an entire month. Visenya certainly couldn't have been everywhere at once and we have no clue whether Alyssa and her children were already imprisoned by that time or not.

 Yes, Aenys' Kingsguard might have defected to Aegon as soon as they had the opportunity, or else have been detailed to protect Aegon and Rhaena before Aenys died. My point is that Maegor would not have kept in his Kingsguard any who had openly fought for Aegon I,5.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I guess because this was actually a widespread conspiracy to murder Aegon II and crown Aegon III done by the people in charge who had no intention to continue the war be slaughtered as Green sympathizers by the Blacks storming the capital.

And why do you think this was widespread?

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Who do you think that could have been? Some servant who for some reason had the coin and opportunity to purchase poison?

Yes. Are all poisons really that expensive? Tyrion did not pay for poison.

Look at it this way: what were the options of Aegon II besides taking Black? Not only being slaughtered. He had come to King's Landing a few months ago. He could have cut off the ear of Aegon son of Rhaenyra and packed up again - sail for Dragonstone, or overland to Storm's End, Oldtown, Casterly Rock...

If Greens were retreating, who do you think would have been slaughtered? Not the people in charge - there was space in ships for them. But rather servants and low ranking people, who might get left behind to face the Blacks.

Poisoning the King did not have to take a widespread conspiracy by people in charge. Could have been a single low-ranking person who had the desperation and the opportunity to do it. Or could have been a few conspirators, whether all low-ranking or one higher-ranking to pay for poison.

Incidentally: of the accused, all of them took the black, i. e. were men, save 1 acquitted and 2 executed, also men. No woman was among scapegoats.

What do you think did Mhysaria think?

The Blood and Cheese plot was also not widespread. Just 2 operatives, backed by 1 organizer.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Denouncing Tommen as a bastard does not win over his former supporters as much as recognizing Tommen as a trueborn Baratheon and having him bend the knee to the Targaryen king does.

I don't follow you. Those people who right now choose to believe the fiction that Tommen is Robert's son won't be able to do that after the truth has been revealed by the father of the boy. That would be as likely as I contesting your parentage against the word of your own father/uncle. I would look foolish doing that considering that I don't know you all that well. The same should go for the average lord of the Reach and the West. They have no reason not to believe Jaime if he says something like that.

Mace Tyrell would look like a moron if he insisted against Jaime's word that Tommen was 'Robert's son and the rightful king'.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Ditto about Myrcella - conveniently in Dornish hands, so they can claim Stormlands and West in her name unless they rock the boat by calling her a bastard.

Myrcella is only technically in Dornish hands right now. She is on her way to KL and her betrothal to Trystane is effectively over.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

 And that does nothing about Stannis.

Nobody cares about Stannis because nobody likes Stannis. People chose to believe the lie that Cersei's children were Robert's because they did not want Stannis to be king. But now they can choose between Cersei's bastards and Prince Aegon. And they will choose Aegon.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

 Yes, Aenys' Kingsguard might have defected to Aegon as soon as they had the opportunity, or else have been detailed to protect Aegon and Rhaena before Aenys died.

Yeah, Aegon and Rhaena may have some Kingsguard with them on their progress. No idea though if they survived if they had some. Could be that they were caught down before they reached Crakehall Castle.

And it is also possible that there was a later defection to Aegon. But we don't know that. Could also be that all of them stuck with Maegor and Visenya.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

My point is that Maegor would not have kept in his Kingsguard any who had openly fought for Aegon I,5.

There I agree. Such man most likely would have been hanged or fed to Balerion.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

And why do you think this was widespread?

The only hint is that Cregan charged so many people with this crime. We have nothing else to go by.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Yes. Are all poisons really that expensive? Tyrion did not pay for poison.

Because he stole it from the Grand Maester.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Look at it this way: what were the options of Aegon II besides taking Black? Not only being slaughtered. He had come to King's Landing a few months ago. He could have cut off the ear of Aegon son of Rhaenyra and packed up again - sail for Dragonstone, or overland to Storm's End, Oldtown, Casterly Rock...

No that was no longer an option because the harbor of the city is outside the walls and the Riverlords were already at the city gates at that point. They might already have seized the ships in the harbor.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

If Greens were retreating, who do you think would have been slaughtered? Not the people in charge - there was space in ships for them. But rather servants and low ranking people, who might get left behind to face the Blacks.

That would mean the people in power were eager to follow a doomed cripple king into exile assisting him in his futile attempts to regain the throne and prolong a war they could no longer afford. Winter had come the year before already, remember?

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Poisoning the King did not have to take a widespread conspiracy by people in charge. Could have been a single low-ranking person who had the desperation and the opportunity to do it. Or could have been a few conspirators, whether all low-ranking or one higher-ranking to pay for poison.

Aegon II died at a moment when it was politically convenient for the men around him who wanted peace - like Corlys Velaryon. A servant would have to foresee the events that would unfold as well as the king's unwillingness to take the black and the opportunity to poison him. How likely is that?

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Incidentally: of the accused, all of them took the black, i. e. were men, save 1 acquitted and 2 executed, also men. No woman was among scapegoats.

What do you think did Mhysaria think?

An interesting idea but we have no idea whether Mysaria still lived at that time.

7 minutes ago, Jaak said:

The Blood and Cheese plot was also not widespread. Just 2 operatives, backed by 1 organizer.

Sure, but that was a different kind of thing entirely.

[Jaak]

It's also not unlikely that there was a number of independent plots, just one of which went through.

The event is described as pretty fast - from the time the king announced the order to cut off the ear of Aegon son of Rhaenyra, till the time he drank the wine.

Either someone was thinking on his feet, without having the time to consult with possible coconspirators. Or else it was a coincidence that the king was poisoned at that specific time, and the plot had been afoot for some time.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Jaak said:

It's also not unlikely that there was a number of independent plots, just one of which went through.

The event is described as pretty fast - from the time the king announced the order to cut off the ear of Aegon son of Rhaenyra, till the time he drank the wine.

Either someone was thinking on his feet, without having the time to consult with possible coconspirators. Or else it was a coincidence that the king was poisoned at that specific time, and the plot had been afoot for some time.

Well, Yandel seems to think Aegon's own men - his councilors and Kingsguard - murdered him. That's the impression we get. There is no hint that anybody ever thought it might have been some servant.

The best idea with the information we have is that there was a conspiracy among the people around Aegon II who all had realized that the war was effectively lost and/or that they had no inclination to continue it. Corlys Velaryon definitely was one of those. He had already urged Rhaenyra to make peace with her brothers. Those men were first trying to convince Aegon II to see reason and when he refused they killed him.

[Jaak]

Look at this aspect of conspiracy: what you need a big conspiracy for is a coup. Because if you attempt a coup with a small conspiracy, the wider circle of potential sympathizers, being not in on the plot and being surprised and confused, are likely to do their duty for law and order.

Whereas an assassination plot works fine with a small number of accomplices. Additional conspirators increase the risk of discovery without improving the chances of success.

You could easily have had many people plotting to kill Aegon II, each on their own and afraid to trust anyone else with the plots. Until one of them did it and the other plots remained fruitless.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-09-27 at 8:25 PM, Jaak said:

At the point of fall of King´s Landing, Black forces were victorious there, and the Greens were in disarray - lord Jason Lannister fallen at Green Fork and Casterly Rock in "considerable disarray" under his widow lady Johanna, under siege by Dalton Greyjoy; Borros Baratheon fallen; Ormund Hightower fallen without accepted successor; Princess Jaehaera simple, and her whereabouts unspecified.

That's the status on the battlefield, but it wasn't continued into purges of the Greens or major exiling or executing of various lords. Thus the war ended in a compromise rather than a total Black victory and a re-structure of the aftermath. I mean, even prominent Greens like Tyland Lannister and Unwin Peake would come to take part in the higher levels of government.

On 2016-09-27 at 8:25 PM, Jaak said:

Nobody was leading Greens for negotiation. Yet the Blacks were making huge concessions.

The suspects in poisoning Aegon II were at least 19 people arrested by Cregan. The suspects in killing Maegor were himself, the Throne itself, an unknown intruder - and 5 Kingsguard.

Although unlike Maegor´s 5, Jaime is universally recognized as a Kingslayer.

Corlys seems to have essentially accepted a compromise with the Greens regardless of if he had anyone to negotiate with, and the rest of the Blacks seems to have followed his lead without much question.

Also what people that Cregan arrested for the murder don't mean much to me as I don't give that rebel the benefit of doubt that it was nothing more than purge on drummed up charges. And if, as some have claimed, that Corlys orchestrated the murder of Kings Aegon II then its even clearer a case of the Blacks, or just Cregan, conducting a political purge of the court under the cover of justice. I think that its rather clear that this purge is what allowed Corlys to rule as regent for so long and to implement what policies that he wanted, and that it largely left Princess Jaehaera without allies.

er toN

On 2016-09-27 at 9:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

You should call yourself StagoftheEast. You have just twisted Prince Aegon's into some Stannis' travesty. He would reward Jaime for saving his life and execute him for killing his grandfather. But there is no reason whatsoever that Aegon would behave in a similar fashion.

Not really. I don't see Stannis in Aegon but I do see Aegor Rivers in Jon Connington and I see the influence that the Dancing Griffon has over his charge. When taking into account that Jon thought that he was to soft against the rebels in the last war and he is determined to no fail Aegon like he failed Rhaegar, then I don't see the promise for the arrival of the Prince of Peace.

Also while I like the Baratheons, I'm rather content with the Lannisters as my favorites.

On 2016-09-27 at 9:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

In fact, if the public learned that Jaime actually killed Aerys to prevent the burning of KL - and there is no reason to keep this a secret - then public opinion (including Targaryen loyalists) might very well change in Jaime's favor. He could become some sort of hero.

Problem is that people have gone on for over ten years hating Jamie and why should anyone try their damnest to restore Jamie's reputation when he has himself barely lift a finger about it? Jamie himself haven't told anyone so I don't see why anyone else would be able to convince public opinion of this.

On 2016-09-27 at 9:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

Varys always worked in favor of a Targaryen restoration and Aegon knows that. Perhaps Doran Martell could claim something similar. But that's it.

The same can be said by pretty much any one. They can bring out Targaryen banners and tapestries and claim they've always been loyal and awaited the return of their rightful king. And since before Aegon's arrival there has never been a point under Robert when they would have been forced to show their colors on the question, how can you possibly argue that what they claim isn't true, and so suddenly half the realm have always been the Targayrens' men. Yet for some strange reason no one did anything to bring the Targaryens back.

On 2016-09-27 at 9:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

Jaehaerys I also did not whip his subjects into line all the time. Aegon has to win the hearts of his people. He cannot risk being seen as cruel or a tyrant. In fact, he should become a very weak king very much like Aenys I in the sense that he will have to bow down to the Faith as well as to the demands of the people who made him king. He has no dragons and his hold on the throne will always be shaky because the other pretenders are not going to go anyway. And he won't remain king for long, presumably.

I agree. Excessive harshness is as bad or worse than being to meek. But even so if Aegon counts on actually managing to hold on to the throne, then he can't be all soft and pleasant to everyone.

On 2016-09-27 at 9:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

If Aegon is as stupid as actually going after the houses who led the Rebellion he would be stupid. Aside from Jaime leading the rebellion against Aerys are dead.

He don't need to go after everyone. Kill Jamie, humble the Lannisters and Arryns, and then put some loyal men to hold the Riverlands and Stormlands and he'll be all set.

Also remember that Aegon came into power thanks to the Golden Company, and from the sound of them they have some scores to settle in Westeros. Franklyn Flowers wants to kill Fossoways, the three Peake brothers may have some relation with Lord Titus Peake and so on. Odds are that Aegon may have to pick a side between his sellswords and the lords caught on the wrong side by these sellswords. Being everyone's best friend won't hold water then.

On 2016-09-27 at 9:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

Jaime will be a special case. He'll abandon his house and family and fully embrace the life of a Targaryen Kingsguard. As he tried to do as a youth (and failed).

Could be but while I personally love Jamie, Aegon would be an utterly fool to accept Jamie with his CV on the Kingsguard. Better pack Jamie off to Casterly Rock or the Wall.

On 2016-09-27 at 9:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

He won't really destroy House Lannister, only its claim/hold to the throne by ruining Cersei and her children. What the Lannisters in the West will do when they learn of Aegon and all that I cannot predict at this point. They could join him, they could do nothing, they could oppose him if Cersei gets there and/or allies with Euron. They could even end up in team Dany if they are enemies of Aegon's and/or Euron's by the time she arrives.

Well I naturally want the Lannisters to come out in the best shape possible so all hopefully they'll get throught this pretty well. Even if I think that the West will stand in civil war when Tyrion press his claim on Casterly Rock after Danaerys returns.

On 2016-09-27 at 9:19 PM, Lord Varys said:

That would be very bad form, tyranny, even. Those men have to follow their orders. And Kingsguard named by Maegor would have been his men, anyway.

Could well be when I think about it.

[Lord Varys]

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

That's the status on the battlefield, but it wasn't continued into purges of the Greens or major exiling or executing of various lords. Thus the war ended in a compromise rather than a total Black victory and a re-structure of the aftermath. I mean, even prominent Greens like Tyland Lannister and Unwin Peake would come to take part in the higher levels of government.

The Greens were defeated on the field, that much is clear. And they were also in no shape to continue the war while the Blacks were. The Starks and Riverlords were undefeated, and there might have been Vale armies as well. The Lannister, Hightower, and Baratheon armies were all defeated.

The war could have continued if the envoys Aegon II had sent to Essos would have returned with sellswords but they did not. Nobody in Westeros was able to fight for the Green cause on the battlefield.

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Corlys seems to have essentially accepted a compromise with the Greens regardless of if he had anyone to negotiate with, and the rest of the Blacks seems to have followed his lead without much question.

That is not the case. Corlys Velaryon offered terms for a peace and those were accepted, yes, but it is quite clear that there was opposition to this from the Black side. Cregan Stark chose to not push the issue but he actually wanted to punish all the traitors rebelling against Rhaenyra.

In addition, the Regency council and government the Realm eventually got was only established after Cregan Stark resigned as Hand and decided to go home. Had he not done that he alone could very well have ruled the Realm in the name of Aegon III throughout the king's minority. He was the Hand and he had the army. What else would he have needed?

Once the Stark element was gone from court there was no longer a clear leader aside from Corlys Velaryon who already had favored compromise and peace earlier in during the war. The Regency council of the seven regents most likely was his idea, and it is pretty obvious that the Blacks were willing to give the Greens a share in the government of the Realm. There is no hint that they were forced to do that.

In fact, with Aegon II the whole conflict should have come to a sudden end. Most of the Greens fighting for 'principles' wanted a male monarch on the throne. They got that with Aegon III. The Blacks got what they wanted, too, by having Rhaenyra's son on the throne rather than some child of Aegon II's.

The idea that anybody aside from Alicent was particularly loyal to the her bloodline or the bloodline of Aegon II is ridiculous.

Thus one should not assume that the Black-vs.-Green did survive Aegon II's death for long. And Queen Jaehaera was basically a joke for everyone considering she was female and a lackwit.

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Also what people that Cregan arrested for the murder don't mean much to me as I don't give that rebel the benefit of doubt that it was nothing more than purge on drummed up charges. And if, as some have claimed, that Corlys orchestrated the murder of Kings Aegon II then its even clearer a case of the Blacks, or just Cregan, conducting a political purge of the court under the cover of justice. I think that its rather clear that this purge is what allowed Corlys to rule as regent for so long and to implement what policies that he wanted, and that it largely left Princess Jaehaera without allies.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Cregan tried to charge Corlys with the murder, too, and had to dissuaded from that. Besides, it is completely within the Stark mindset to punish the murderers of king (whereas the Lannisters show their inherent dishonor when Tyland doesn't feel bound by a vow his father swore to Rhaenyra).

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Not really. I don't see Stannis in Aegon but I do see Aegor Rivers in Jon Connington and I see the influence that the Dancing Griffon has over his charge.

That influence is waning in his last chapter. Not to mention that Connington and Aegor Rivers have nothing in common. There is no hatred between Connington and some Bloodraven-like figure in Westeros. Not to mention that there is also no woman involved there.

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

When taking into account that Jon thought that he was to soft against the rebels in the last war and he is determined to no fail Aegon like he failed Rhaegar, then I don't see the promise for the arrival of the Prince of Peace.

Why the hell doesn't Connington not butcher all those treasonous Stormlords who rebelled against Aerys II and helped kill Rhaegar at the Trident?

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Problem is that people have gone on for over ten years hating Jamie and why should anyone try their damnest to restore Jamie's reputation when he has himself barely lift a finger about it? Jamie himself haven't told anyone so I don't see why anyone else would be able to convince public opinion of this.

If they are smart they could include the High Septon into Jaime's whitewashing. That should work considering how popular the new High Septon should be with the commoners.

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

The same can be said by pretty much any one. They can bring out Targaryen banners and tapestries and claim they've always been loyal and awaited the return of their rightful king.

Awaiting is not the same as plotting and preparing. Doran and Varys did stuff like that.

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

And since before Aegon's arrival there has never been a point under Robert when they would have been forced to show their colors on the question, how can you possibly argue that what they claim isn't true, and so suddenly half the realm have always been the Targayrens' men. Yet for some strange reason no one did anything to bring the Targaryens back.

Aegon is smart enough to see the difference between claimed and true loyalty. 

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree. Excessive harshness is as bad or worse than being to meek. But even so if Aegon counts on actually managing to hold on to the throne, then he can't be all soft and pleasant to everyone.

He can to the people who are going to put him there. Those who are going to oppose him won't be treated all that well. But if Jaime is trying to help him he is not going to be punished for that. In fact, if Aegon can forgive Jaime then many other lords might decide that they prefer this mild and forgiving king over vindictive Cersei or 'just Stannis'. Aegon has to make himself attractive to the lords or else nobody is going to declare for him. And the Lords of the West are certainly among the men he does not want to antagonize if he can prevent it.

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

He don't need to go after everyone. Kill Jamie, humble the Lannisters and Arryns, and then put some loyal men to hold the Riverlands and Stormlands and he'll be all set.

Humble the Arryns? Why the hell would he want to do that? And why would he want to antagonize the Lannisters (aside from Cersei, of course)? There is no reason for that.

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Also remember that Aegon came into power thanks to the Golden Company, and from the sound of them they have some scores to settle in Westeros. Franklyn Flowers wants to kill Fossoways, the three Peake brothers may have some relation with Lord Titus Peake and so on. Odds are that Aegon may have to pick a side between his sellswords and the lords caught on the wrong side by these sellswords. Being everyone's best friend won't hold water then.

Aegon has to reward his Golden Company officers, that's true. Conveniently a lot of the Crownland houses are without a clear and powerful leader right now. The Lady of Hayford is a child, Rosby is without a lord, Stokeworth in the hands of a baseborn sellsword. Those would make fine seats for officers who prove their mettle in battle.

And yeah, those friends in the Reach might not look so kindly on the Golden Company if they begin killing their kin there. If the Peakes are genuine they better not want to steal any lands from Titus Peake or else they won't find many friends there. Lord Caswell is also not going to like this Rolly Duckfield chap on Aegon's Kingsguard.

58 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Could be but while I personally love Jamie, Aegon would be an utterly fool to accept Jamie with his CV on the Kingsguard. Better pack Jamie off to Casterly Rock or the Wall.

Certainly not to Casterly Rock. Jaime could also be effectively a hostage on Aegon's Kingsguard. The cripple is not likely to pull off another kingslaying with his sword.

18 hours ago, Jaak said:

Look at this aspect of conspiracy: what you need a big conspiracy for is a coup. Because if you attempt a coup with a small conspiracy, the wider circle of potential sympathizers, being not in on the plot and being surprised and confused, are likely to do their duty for law and order.

Whereas an assassination plot works fine with a small number of accomplices. Additional conspirators increase the risk of discovery without improving the chances of success.

You could easily have had many people plotting to kill Aegon II, each on their own and afraid to trust anyone else with the plots. Until one of them did it and the other plots remained fruitless.

The idea here is that I imagine that a majority of the people around Aegon II were in agreement that it was futile to continue the war. They had to yield and Aegon II had to go to the Wall or face execution. In such a scenario there is no need for a coup. Political reality dictates a certain cause of action and if the king stands in the way of reason he has to go. You don't need a large conspiracy for that. In fact, it seems Aegon II power had completely eroded by this point. Nobody cut off Aegon's ear despite his order. The idea that the man still had much support among the men around him is very unlikely. Else they would have killed more people than just Aegon II or there would have been a violent coup like the one Cersei pulled off after Robert's death.

[Jaak]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea here is that I imagine that a majority of the people around Aegon II were in agreement that it was futile to continue the war. They had to yield and Aegon II had to go to the Wall or face execution. In such a scenario there is no need for a coup. Political reality dictates a certain cause of action and if the king stands in the way of reason he has to go. You don't need a large conspiracy for that. In fact, it seems Aegon II power had completely eroded by this point. Nobody cut off Aegon's ear despite his order. The idea that the man still had much support among the men around him is very unlikely. Else they would have killed more people than just Aegon II or there would have been a violent coup like the one Cersei pulled off after Robert's death.

Precisely. You now agree that there was neither need for a large conspiracy, nor much time for it (Muddy Mess was quite near King´s Landing, and until Muddy Mess Aegon II had been winning).

If there were few Greens willing to drag out the war with Aegon II, whether to Dragonstone or Storm´s End, the bulk of the men present in King´s Landing under the green flag had actually a bunch of alternatives:

1. They could desert or defect as individuals/individual units and leave Aegon II and his remaining supporters behind at Red Keep
2. They could undertake a coup and apprehend Aegon II alive
3. They might assassinate him

They would have needed time to agree on which of these three courses of action to take - the time they did not have.

Compare a selection of other rulers who were losing wars:

Queen Argella - apprehended alive, stripped nude and handed over to Orys

Maegor the Cruel - deserted by Rhaena, and 2 out of 7 Kingsguard, killed by an unknown person (Kingsguard among suspects)

Aerys II - killed by Jaime

Robb.

After Robb had flagrantly violated his marriage agreement with Freys, and was losing the war, many expected the Freys to refuse Robb´s offer of recompense, slam Twins´ gates in his face and trap Robb between Twins and Tywin.

Instead, Freys pretended to reconcile, took him under their roof and slew him and his men.

Even a lot of Lannister soldiers, who must have recognized that the Freys had saved their life, not having died in Robb´s heroic last stand before Twins´ gates, despised Freys for Red Wedding. Tywin and Jaime do not punish Freys for their betrayal, they reward them - but they are making clear that Freys are despised and distrusted, and do not get more than they were specifically promised.

[Lion of the West]

On 2016-10-01 at 0:09 PM, Lord Varys said:

The Greens were defeated on the field, that much is clear. And they were also in no shape to continue the war while the Blacks were. The Starks and Riverlords were undefeated, and there might have been Vale armies as well. The Lannister, Hightower, and Baratheon armies were all defeated.

I agree, yet in the end it was compromisse and reconciliation, not vengeance and purges, that was the order of the day.

Quote

The war could have continued if the envoys Aegon II had sent to Essos would have returned with sellswords but they did not. Nobody in Westeros was able to fight for the Green cause on the battlefield.

No major center, but the Green army in the Reach would likely have been able to gather itself again due to the fact that it wasn't destroyed like the other four Green armies active in the war. For as you recall, it retreated on its own accord due to desertations and logistics.

Quote

That is not the case. Corlys Velaryon offered terms for a peace and those were accepted, yes, but it is quite clear that there was opposition to this from the Black side. Cregan Stark chose to not push the issue but he actually wanted to punish all the traitors rebelling against Rhaenyra.

Which means that either Cregan was not really interested or Corlys was a real charmer. For we've got the situation that Cregan was Hand and had a large army, and Corlys just pushed him to do as Corlys wanted instead of what Cregan wanted when Corlys had about nothing to hold on to Cregan with. They were not to my knowledge friends, relatives and Corlys didn't to much knowledge have any power close to Cregan's to back himself up with. It does not at all make sense for me that a guy who wants to continue the war, has the largest army in the field, all his enemy armies are defeated and for some strange reason he just turns around and heads home at the behest of someone like Corlys who just got out of prison. Most likely Cregan only wanted to go home from the start and Corlys talked him into a "bad cop and good cop" trick with Cregan being the bad cop and Corlys the good cop to purge the court of Greens and allow Corlys to take the reins of power while appearing as a figure of reconciliation.

You really need to explain to me why Cregan Stark would, in his position of strength, not push the issue over Corlys objections.

Quote

In addition, the Regency council and government the Realm eventually got was only established after Cregan Stark resigned as Hand and decided to go home. Had he not done that he alone could very well have ruled the Realm in the name of Aegon III throughout the king's minority. He was the Hand and he had the army. What else would he have needed?

I don't think that Cregan would be able to rule anything. For the first thing he was either a partner with Corlys to purge the court OR he was really, really weak in his will, if Corlys could just take all his desire to punish the Lannisters, Baratheons and Hightowers without anything of significant force backing up Lord Velaryon.

Quote

Once the Stark element was gone from court there was no longer a clear leader aside from Corlys Velaryon who already had favored compromise and peace earlier in during the war. The Regency council of the seven regents most likely was his idea, and it is pretty obvious that the Blacks were willing to give the Greens a share in the government of the Realm. There is no hint that they were forced to do that.

Of course there was no leader left. Corlys and Cregan had already purged those or they had died during the war. But it is true that Corlys favored compromisse earlier in the favor to his credit so his shenigans of justice with the use of Lord Stark should perhaps be overlooked in that it was preferable to the realm over continued war. But when I said that it was a compromisse peace I didn't say that the Greens were able to force the Blacks to anything. What I said was that the Blacks were not forcing everything on the Greens as the Blacks might have wished.

Quote

In fact, with Aegon II the whole conflict should have come to a sudden end. Most of the Greens fighting for 'principles' wanted a male monarch on the throne. They got that with Aegon III. The Blacks got what they wanted, too, by having Rhaenyra's son on the throne rather than some child of Aegon II's.

The idea that anybody aside from Alicent was particularly loyal to the her bloodline or the bloodline of Aegon II is ridiculous.

Not at all ridiculous. Its just a matter of realipolitik that all or most Green leaders were dead, their armies defeated and most of Aegon's kin were also dead, untill that treacherous asshole Unwin Peake had the poor princess murdered, and Corlys and Cregan had already packed off most of the people staying with Aegon to the end off to the Wall or in a few cases cut of their heads. After that its really not suprising that no matter how devoted they might have been, there was precious little they could do.

Also if people just wanted a man on the Iron Throne, why didn't they back Hugh Hammer? He had a larger dragon than Daeron and was a male. Yet for some reason his ambitions were unacceptable and the Greens sought his death due to them. As such I utterly reject the notion that the Greens would not have a loyalty to the bloodline of Aegon II Targaryen.

Quote

Thus one should not assume that the Black-vs.-Green did survive Aegon II's death for long. And Queen Jaehaera was basically a joke for everyone considering she was female and a lackwit.

To rule herself was naturally not on the table, but as a dynastic pawn she was very valuable and any husband of her would have effective control over the realm and also have a strong claim. That's rather easily the reason as to why Corlys wanted to see Aegon III and Jaehaera married together.

Quote

That makes no sense whatsoever. Cregan tried to charge Corlys with the murder, too, and had to dissuaded from that. Besides, it is completely within the Stark mindset to punish the murderers of king (whereas the Lannisters show their inherent dishonor when Tyland doesn't feel bound by a vow his father swore to Rhaenyra).

A show trial makes perfect sense and if the Black Targaryens backed up Corlys, it makes even better sense for Cregan and Corlys to work together, as Corlys was by some strange, perhaps magical, reason able to make Cregan do what Corlys wanted instead of what Cregan wanted.

I don't accept that oaths sworn for Situation A by Participant B are in effect for Situation D and Participant T. That's like saying as far as I am concerned that, that the oaths presumably sworn by Lord TItus Peake are in effect for the Peakes over with the Golden Company as well.

Quote

That influence is waning in his last chapter. Not to mention that Connington and Aegor Rivers have nothing in common. There is no hatred between Connington and some Bloodraven-like figure in Westeros. Not to mention that there is also no woman involved there.

I think they have very much in common as a matter of fact. Both of them are, or were, great warriors of the realm and fought for a man they were very close to. In the aftermath of their defeat they both became sellswords and took it upon themselves to do for the son(s) what they failed to do for the father. And now, just like Bittersteel, Connington is leading the Golden Company to place a dragon on the Iron Throne in a second round against the House that drive Connington and his ward into exile in the first place.

Quote

Why the hell doesn't Connington not butcher all those treasonous Stormlords who rebelled against Aerys II and helped kill Rhaegar at the Trident?

Because they are not the ones he wants. Those guys are small fish who can, if needed, be dealt with later. The big ones that I recall Connington as wanting to pull down are the Baratheons and the Lannisters. The rest are just mooks to be disposed when necessary along the way.

Quote

If they are smart they could include the High Septon into Jaime's whitewashing. That should work considering how popular the new High Septon should be with the commoners.

Problem is that the new High Septon would presumably want something for his blessing. Will Aegon and Connington think its worth the price?

Quote

Awaiting is not the same as plotting and preparing. Doran and Varys did stuff like that.

The other can make all manner of wild unprovable and undisputable claims. And given that Varys is the only one who has a hint to the truth, it will be Varys who effectively decides.

Quote

Aegon is smart enough to see the difference between claimed and true loyalty. 

Is he? Tyrion played him like a fiddle and there are many Tyrions in Westeros.

Quote

He can to the people who are going to put him there. Those who are going to oppose him won't be treated all that well. But if Jaime is trying to help him he is not going to be punished for that. In fact, if Aegon can forgive Jaime then many other lords might decide that they prefer this mild and forgiving king over vindictive Cersei or 'just Stannis'. Aegon has to make himself attractive to the lords or else nobody is going to declare for him. And the Lords of the West are certainly among the men he does not want to antagonize if he can prevent it.

Well, I naturally want the Lannisters to come out as well as possible so it all sounds good to me. But even so the Dornish have been waiting and waiting for a chance to take revenge on the Lannisters, and now they will suddenly not have that anymore? Unless Doran is still in charge and remains in charge Aegon is going to face some really pissed of Dornish. And the Sand Snakes are not the patient kingd, for good or worse.

Quote

Humble the Arryns? Why the hell would he want to do that? And why would he want to antagonize the Lannisters (aside from Cersei, of course)? There is no reason for that.

Because to show people that the Dragon is back for real. He don't need to kill them but they need to pay him homage and everyone needs to know who is the new sheriff in town, and that messing with him is bad business.

Quote

Aegon has to reward his Golden Company officers, that's true. Conveniently a lot of the Crownland houses are without a clear and powerful leader right now. The Lady of Hayford is a child, Rosby is without a lord, Stokeworth in the hands of a baseborn sellsword. Those would make fine seats for officers who prove their mettle in battle.

And yeah, those friends in the Reach might not look so kindly on the Golden Company if they begin killing their kin there. If the Peakes are genuine they better not want to steal any lands from Titus Peake or else they won't find many friends there. Lord Caswell is also not going to like this Rolly Duckfield chap on Aegon's Kingsguard.

Problem is, will the Golden Company want some scraps collected from the Crownlands? Because I don't think they just want any castle, they want the seats of their Houses and not something else entirely. Also Lady Hayford may be a child, but she is still the heir of Lord Hayford so stealing her birthright to give to some sellsword is going to provoke people. To that add that you can just take Stokeworth away from Bronn because he's only a lowly sellsword catapulted to a noble position, what will the upstanding members of society in the Golden Company think of that reasoning?

Thing is that I don't think the Peakes in the Golden Company will settle for anything but Starpike, Dustonbury and Whitegrove while Webber will want Coldmoat and so on. And if they don't get these things I do all honestly believe that those mercanries will think themselves cheated of their pay, and cheating the Golden Company of their pay is very bad for your health.

We will probably have to wait for Winds before we know, but I rather convinced this is the thing with the Golden Company and the focus on them being exiles who want to return home, not find a new home or get a ton of cash and then sent on their way. Sooner or later Aegon will have to decide who his friends really and stick with them, and then things is likely to not be kisses and sunshine any more.

Quote

Certainly not to Casterly Rock. Jaime could also be effectively a hostage on Aegon's Kingsguard. The cripple is not likely to pull off another kingslaying with his sword.

Its a living example that nowadays a Kingsguard can get away with some pretty henious stuff without punishment. A danger reminder for people.

Quote

The idea here is that I imagine that a majority of the people around Aegon II were in agreement that it was futile to continue the war. They had to yield and Aegon II had to go to the Wall or face execution. In such a scenario there is no need for a coup. Political reality dictates a certain cause of action and if the king stands in the way of reason he has to go. You don't need a large conspiracy for that. In fact, it seems Aegon II power had completely eroded by this point. Nobody cut off Aegon's ear despite his order. The idea that the man still had much support among the men around him is very unlikely. Else they would have killed more people than just Aegon II or there would have been a violent coup like the one Cersei pulled off after Robert's death.

 On the field of battle it was a clear Black victory, I agree, but the things is that war is at the end of it, politics. Thus we see that the outcome of the war and its aftermath does not represent the Blacks triumphantly rearranging Westeros according to their wants. Its a compromisse where a minority of the Greens are pardoned and no Green House to our knowledge loses lands or titles. If we look at the end of the Blackfyre Rebellion then we'll know what a fully fledged Black victory would look like.

Quote

That is not the case. Corlys Velaryon offered terms for a peace and those were accepted, yes, but it is quite clear that there was opposition to this from the Black side. Cregan Stark chose to not push the issue but he actually wanted to punish all the traitors rebelling against Rhaenyra.

The problem is that there don't seems to have been any real opposition to Corlys. First all the Black Targaryens tripped over themselves by account to save Corlys from punishment and then Cregan Stark, despite having an army while Corlys to my knowledge did not, pretty much just accepted that Corlys ran the show and went home. If Cregan Stark was really into punishing the Greens he could have told Corlys to go to hell and march away to Casterly Rock, Storm's End or Oldtown and continue the war. Instead he banished a bunch of guys to the Wall and then went home while Corlys took over everything. Its rather clear that an opposition to Corlys among the Blacks is an illusion.

Quote

In addition, the Regency council and government the Realm eventually got was only established after Cregan Stark resigned as Hand and decided to go home. Had he not done that he alone could very well have ruled the Realm in the name of Aegon III throughout the king's minority. He was the Hand and he had the army. What else would he have needed?

I'd say nothing stopped him, so its rather odd that if he did feel like he wanted to do this or that, he didn't do it but marched home instead. As such I dare say that either he really didn't want to go on a punishing spree in regards to the Greens, or someone told him that he wasn't about to do that, and Cregan Stark backed down. Either way the "trials" after Aegon II's murder looks pretty much as either a bone thrown to Cregan Stark by Corlys so that Cregan could get to punish someone, or Cregan wasn't really into punshing the Greens and was strongarmed into figureheading a purge at the court before he was allowed to go home.

PS: Forgive me if the post came out strange, I might clicked or done something wrong.

 

[Lord Varys]

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

I agree, yet in the end it was compromisse and reconciliation, not vengeance and purges, that was the order of the day.

Let's look at the time line there insofar as we can be sure about it.

1. The Battle of the Kingsroad. Aegon II's last army is defeated. He either sent men to Essos prior to look for sellswords prior to that battle or immediately thereafter (my guess is prior to it but we don't know).

2. The victorious Riverlords reach KL and camp outside the city. The Stark army is marching down. This is important. The Riverlords (and presumably some Vale men) reach KL before Cregan's larger host gets there.

3. Aegon II's advisers urge him to yield and take the Black. He refuses and is killed.

4. Aegon III is crowned and anointed, and married to his betrothed Princess Jaehaera. Queen Dowager Alicent is imprisoned. Corlys Velaryon sends messages (presumably by raven) to Oldtown, Casterly Rock, Storm's End declaring that a new king has been crowned and offering (acceptable) conditions for peace. Around the same time - perhaps even before the coronation of Aegon III - the gates would have been opened and the Riverlords would have entered the city.

5. Cregan Stark only marches his army into the city after Aegon III's coronation. He played no role in those original peace negotiations. Once he had reached the king he forced him to make him Hand and conducted his trials. People were also still waiting for the answers from the leading Green supporters by the time he arrived and everybody was anxious whether the war would continue or not.

That means Cregan didn't work with Corlys Velaryon at all. Corlys wanted peace, Cregan wanted a continuation of the war and the punishment of the traitors because he had marshaled an army he did not intend to march back home. A lot of men were supposed to die in battle.

In the end Cregan did not force the issue of the war - perhaps because he realized that he alone could not continue the war without the support of the other Blacks? I doubt the Riverlords had much interest in a continuation of the war in the middle of winter with their lands in ruins and neither is it likely that Jeyne Arryn was keen on that kind of thing.

The Regency council was only installed after Cregan resigned as Hand. The idea we get when he conducted his trials is that he was the man in charge, not the first among equals. He was the man with the army, he controlled the king and his entire court. And Corlys Velaryon could only save his own life and titles thanks to the schemes of his granddaughters and Cregan's future wife. That strongly suggests that these two men weren't exactly best friends. If Baela/Rhaena/Alysanne hadn't intervened Corlys might have ended up at the Wall or short a head.

Once Cregan was gone the whole compromise thing prevailed with seven regents and shared power and all, but that wouldn't (necessarily) have been the case with Cregan as Hand. Details like that show that the Blacks actually won the war and agreed to make an honorable peace with the Greens rather than being forced into a compromise by mere necessity.

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

No major center, but the Green army in the Reach would likely have been able to gather itself again due to the fact that it wasn't destroyed like the other four Green armies active in the war. For as you recall, it retreated on its own accord due to desertations and logistics.

The impression you get is that this army disintegrated because there was no clear leader left and they lacked provisions. Perhaps a fraction of them could have reformed but this would have only worked if the men would have been still willing to fight - unlikely considering that they just disbanded. Most of the men already would have gotten their spoils of war from their march through the Reach.

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

You really need to explain to me why Cregan Stark would, in his position of strength, not push the issue over Corlys objections.

Well, it is clear that the man did not want to rule, right? I mean, that should be the main reason why he resigned as Hand on the same day he took the office.

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Not at all ridiculous. Its just a matter of realipolitik that all or most Green leaders were dead, their armies defeated and most of Aegon's kin were also dead, untill that treacherous asshole Unwin Peake had the poor princess murdered, and Corlys and Cregan had already packed off most of the people staying with Aegon to the end off to the Wall or in a few cases cut of their heads. After that its really not suprising that no matter how devoted they might have been, there was precious little they could do.

The point I'm making is that it is quite clear that the issue of man vs. woman was much more important than personal loyalty to some bloodline. Just because you don't want to be ruled by a woman doesn't mean you are particularly loyal to the man whom you have to accept as your king in her place. Being against Rhaenyra as queen isn't the same as being a die-hard follower of Aegon II.

I assume you don't think that being against Stannis isn't the same as being a Joffrey or Tommen loyalist. The Tyrells are against Stannis and struck a deal with the Lannister but they still murdered Joffrey. The idea that a lot of the men in camp Green weren't caught from the same cloth is pretty naive. And you see what happens when Peake murders the Queen. Absolutely nothing.

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Also if people just wanted a man on the Iron Throne, why didn't they back Hugh Hammer? He had a larger dragon than Daeron and was a male. Yet for some reason his ambitions were unacceptable and the Greens sought his death due to them. As such I utterly reject the notion that the Greens would not have a loyalty to the bloodline of Aegon II Targaryen.

Come on, you know what I meant. I was talking about a Targaryen man, of course, not just some man. Aegon III was a male royal, a member of the royal family. The lords were accustomed to be ruled by such people. People obviously preferred Aegon III to the up-jumped bastard of some blacksmith. That is hardly a surprise.

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

To rule herself was naturally not on the table, but as a dynastic pawn she was very valuable and any husband of her would have effective control over the realm and also have a strong claim. That's rather easily the reason as to why Corlys wanted to see Aegon III and Jaehaera married together.

I guess this was always nothing but some symbol for peace and reunion. Even back when Corlys first suggested this idea to Rhaenyra. The idea that a Queen Regnant Jaehaera would ever have had much support among the lords had she been married to some powerful lord is not very likely. She would still be a lackwit suspected to produce lackwit children. And most lords would not find the idea all that attractive that one of their peers became effectively king at her side.

Not to mention that the entire faction of the 'We don't want a female monarch' among the Greens wouldn't have suffered any of this. Aegon III was male despite the fact that his came through his mother. You choose him rather than an actual woman if you don't want a female ruler.

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Because they are not the ones he wants. Those guys are small fish who can, if needed, be dealt with later. The big ones that I recall Connington as wanting to pull down are the Baratheons and the Lannisters. The rest are just mooks to be disposed when necessary along the way.

Connington only mentions the usurper and his line. His issues are with Robert and his children, not so much the Lannisters. He doesn't know that Cersei's children aren't Robert's as far as we know.

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Problem is that the new High Septon would presumably want something for his blessing. Will Aegon and Connington think its worth the price?

They will have to. But then - perhaps the High Septon won't have another choice. If relations sour with the Tyrells and the administration with King Tommen then the only other pretender he can reasonably declare for is Aegon. Stannis and Euron are heretics/devil-worshipers, and Dany is female and far away right now.

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Is he? Tyrion played him like a fiddle and there are many Tyrions in Westeros.

Tyrion taught Aegon a lesson and there are strong hints in Connington's second chapter that he is following his advice. He begins thinking for himself, rewards men like Rolly Duckfield who have proven their loyalty, and he is also beginning to keep Jon Connington on arm's length. Aegon let Connington wait for an hour until he went to him, taking a tour of the castle and spending time with his men before that. That very much shows how the dynamic of power has already shifted in his favor and that's only going to continue once Aegon actually wears a crown.

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Well, I naturally want the Lannisters to come out as well as possible so it all sounds good to me. But even so the Dornish have been waiting and waiting for a chance to take revenge on the Lannisters, and now they will suddenly not have that anymore? Unless Doran is still in charge and remains in charge Aegon is going to face some really pissed of Dornish. And the Sand Snakes are not the patient kingd, for good or worse.

The Martells want revenge for Elia and the children. Not for Aerys. And Jaime only killed Aerys. But keep in mind that I spoke about the Lords of the West, not the Lannisters. Aegon very well could win the allegiance for a majority of the bannermen of House Lannister without granting the Lannisters any favors. 

19 hours ago, LionoftheWest said:

Problem is, will the Golden Company want some scraps collected from the Crownlands? Because I don't think they just want any castle, they want the seats of their Houses and not something else entirely. Also Lady Hayford may be a child, but she is still the heir of Lord Hayford so stealing her birthright to give to some sellsword is going to provoke people. To that add that you can just take Stokeworth away from Bronn because he's only a lowly sellsword catapulted to a noble position, what will the upstanding members of society in the Golden Company think of that reasoning?

Well, if the Lords of the Crownlands stand with King Tommen they are all traitors and can be attainted easily enough. And you should not underestimate the importance of those seats. Rosby is supposed to a be very rich man.

I also not said that some common men/second-tier officers should be rewarded with lordships. Castles and titles should go to the officers, meaning first to Strickland and then to Black Balaq, Garys Edoryen, Lysono Maar, and then to the other captains. I guess some of the other captains and officers might get rewards, too, and even some of the common men if they prove their loyalty in battle.

The idea that the Golden Company expect that Aegon is going to grant them all of Westeros or some ancestral seats they claim are theirs is not very likely, though. The Peake castles aside from Starpike might no longer exist, by the way. They have never been mentioned in the books as of yet. The same might go for Coldmoat.